Mack attorney files brief, asks for new trial

Trenton Mayor Tony Mack, left, his brother Ralphiel, second from left, and members of their defense teams walk to Federal Court from City Hall right, on the first day of Mack's corruption trial Monday Jan, 6, 2014. (Trentonian photo/Jackie Schear, @TrentonianPix)

TRENTON —Tony Mack is hoping for a second chance to have his day in court.

Mack’s attorney Mark Davis’ argument is that of prosecutorial misconduct. He said that the government’s flagrant and willful mischaracterization of the facts constitutes misconduct warranting a new trial.

Late Friday, Mack’s defense filed a brief in which he said the government played “fast and loose with the facts.”

Davis said in his brief that the government misled the jury and misrepresented evidence. According to the brief, the mishandling by the government led to a “shocking” misrepresentation by U.S. Attorney Matthew J. Skahill. The misrepresentation is labeled as intentional and that it caused the jury “to draw a false, unreasonable inference from the admitted evidence.”

Advertisement

The 23-page brief in support of a motion for a new trial and a motion for acquittal refers to the testimony of Mary Manfredo, longtime friend and confidant of Joseph “JoJo” Giorgianni, and inferences that her testimony was truthful with regard to the events of April 17, 2012.

The brief lays out a three-minute timeline, that if followed as described, puts Mack on the phone at the time he allegedly took the money Giorgianni. Based on phone records, referenced in the brief, Mack would not have been able to have give Giorgianni his undivided attention while accepting the alleged bribe. According to the brief, Mack’s driver would have been inside his vehicle at 1:28 p.m. (which Davis asserts is the real timestamp) and not the time listed in the trial transcript of 1:36 p.m. Davis said that the timestamp discrepancy is a “significant error” contained within the trial transcript.

The government’s argument was that Mack and Giorgianni were still inside the North Ward steakhouse at 1:36 p.m. and Mack was also not using his phone at the time and he could have received the bribe money at that time. Davis asserts in the document that it is more than reasonable to conclude that the jury relied on that misrepresentation in assessing the credibility of Manfredo. Davis said that Manfredo never saw Mack take the money on April 17, 2012. According to the brief, the government presented the time stamp of 13:36 (1:36 p.m.) as undisputed evidence that Mack was still inside the steakhouse and that it directly conflicted with the admitted evidence. Evidence which, according to Davis, was improperly conveyed to the jury as fact. Davis said the federal prosecutor capitalized on his “special aura of legitimacy” in order to perpetrate this injustice.

“She (Manfredo) lied to the Government, this Court and the Jury,” Davis wrote. “And this was demonstrated with hard, irrefutable evidence: Tony Mack’s phone records.”

Mack’s defense contends that the former mayor was using his phone at the exact moments Manfredo said he was receiving bribe money from Giorgianni. Davis further asserts that if Mack had spent only three minutes inside the steakhouse (entering at 1:27 p.m.), he would have had to take his bribe money and leave no later than 1:31 p.m. Based on his phone records Davis said that “there can be no doubt that Manfredo lied about her observations on that date. The brief stated that the government’s exhibits failed to include any pole camera footage taken between 1:28 p.m. and 1:50 p.m.

Davis said that the defense raised sufficient doubt as to the veracity of Manfredo’s statements about April 17, 2012.

“Needless to say,” Davis writes. “(I)f the Government had actually believed, or even hoped, something relevant had occurred in this period, it would have offered the same evidence as a Government exhibit.”

Davis attacks the Government’s case, the bulk of which relied upon intercepted communications, consensual recordings, and pole camera footage.

“At seemingly pivotal moments in the course of this FBI investigation, there were no recordings either intercepted, obtained or recovered,” Davis wrote.

Davis cited other examples he pegged as questionable tactics by the Government during the trial. Of those questionable tactics Davis pointed out that according to the Government, that all bribe payments on or before April 17, 2012 had consisted of only $100 bills, and that fact was significant because he paid his landscaper on the same date with a $100 bill. Davis said the defense was successful able to rebut that evidence, but not what he calls “the Government’s intentional misrepresentation of Manfredo’s chronology of events.”

Davis believes that the jury was under the impression based upon that testimony that Mack had been inside the steakhouse at a time when he was not using his phone, and that Manfredo testified truthfully about him (Mack) giving his full, undivided attention to Giorgianni.

“Without wholesale belief of Manfredo’s version of events,” Davis wrote. “(N)o reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Tony Mack accepted bribe money or had knowledge of the corrupt side-deal. “

Davis said that resulted in a miscarriage of justice that rendered the trial fundamentally flawed and unfair.

Additionally, the defense attorney stated that neither of the cooperating witnesses (Manfredo nor Charles Hall) were credible by any standard. Davis wrote “Hall is a convicted liar.” Davis then said that both Hall and Manfredo were impeached with a multitude of prior inconsistent statements.

“Although jurors could have taken the time to thoroughly review the evidence, including the pole camera footage and thousands of pages of phone records,” Davis wrote. “They clearly did not.”

Davis writes that the defense counsel had spent weeks establishing credibility and trust with each juror and successfully rebuffed the Government’s other attempts at misleading the jury. He said that the defense was precluded from addressing the final and unjust attack made during the Government’s closing arguments. Davis said that this meant the jury deliberated with far less trust in defense counsel and that they accepted the government’s position without independent review of the evidence.

“It would be virtually impossible for them to have done so (reviewed the evidence) and returned the same verdict.”

Much of Davis’ brief relies upon the lack of credibility key witnesses and the government’s usage of the error in the trial transcript to prejudice the jury against Mack.

According to Davis’ brief the jury never heard Mack acknowledge any corrupt aspects of the parking garage deal and that the Government asked them (the jury) to believe a series of grunts, “ums” and “uhs” were assent to a corrupt scheme. Further Davis said that the Government’s details were filled in by “drug conspirators and proven liars.”

Mack and his brother Ralphiel Mack faced charges of extortion, bribery, and mail and wire fraud in an alleged scheme to accept $119,000 in bribes in exchange for using the mayor’s influence over the development of a parking garage on city-owned land. Co-conspirators Joseph “JoJo” Giorgianni and former city recreation department employee Charles Hall III have already admitted guilt in the sting orchestrated by the government by accepting plea deals.

Mack was convicted of all six federal corruption charges while his brother Ralphiel was convicted on three of the six bribery charges the pair were tried for on Feb. 7.

About the Author

Scott is a reporter/photographer at the Trentonian covering general assignment work in the Greater Trenton Area. Reach the author at sketterer@trentonian.com
.